My jaunts in and out of Muslim online forums have always been interesting. I’ve often come across wails of despair; specifically aimed at the rampant disunity amongst Muslims. Writes one inspired Muslim:
…if we follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah, we will be united, this is obvous. But bid’ah is like a barrier stopping us, if we knock down this barrier, we will have unity inshallaah… Subhanallaah this is what we need to do. This may sound contreversial, and i know certain taqleed members will disagree strongly, but these 4 madhabs and the whole following of madhabs is another thing which divides us. These 4 imaams, all credit goes to them, they done great services for the music ummah, they were very knowledgeable. However, the shafee’s and the hanafee’s and the malikis and the hanbali’s, this split only divides us further, and then the so called ‘obligation’ to follow a madhab only divides us further. Why cant we just keep it simple, and follow the madhab of the salaf, our pious predecessers, islaam our deen and Muhammad (sallallhu’alayhi’wa’salaam) our imaam.
The spelling and grammar isn’t Oxford’s, but hopefully, you get the idea.
It’s important to understand where inspired Muslim’s coming from. There exists a group who call themselves the salafists. They profess respect for the four Imams, Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali, but scorn those who practice taqlid, or adherence to the rulings of an Imam. Instead, they claim to follow the madhab (school of thought) of the salaf, who are the pious predecessors of the Prophet Muhammad. Though not explicitly stated, they imply that the four official madhab of ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah (the Sunni majority sect) contain grave errors in fiqh.
To muddy up the waters further, the salafists also call themselves ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah. Some salafists consider their madhab to be the Saved Sect that Prophet Muhammad mentioned in this tradition:
“…my Ummah will be divided into 73 groups. Only one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.”
2 key differences between the traditional ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah and salafist ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah must be put on record:
- Traditional ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah accepts the practice of taqlid
- Traditional ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah interpret “the Saved Sect” metaphorically. It means “the majority”, or “the norm”, instead of a specific madhab. Indeed, some scholars explain that the hadith refers to political collectivity of the Muslims rather than sectarian divides
That done, let’s return to the post of inspired Muslim. I’ll break it down into more palatable bites. There are 3 main points he raised, and I’ll respond to them from the standpoint of the traditional ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah.
1. these 4 madhabs and the whole following of madhabs is another thing which divides us.
This is not correct. In matters of fiqh, all madhabs are legitimate schools. Differences in opinions (khilaf) may occur in issues that are supported by definite nas (specific ruling). In matters of aqidah (Islamic dogma and doctrine), ibadah (worship) and social relationships which are not supported by definite nas, it is acceptable to have khilaf.
Khilaf in matters that are not supported by nas may be accepted, as long as such views are supported by evidence that are consistent with usul fiqh (Methodology for Research and Knowledge in Islamic Jurisprudence). The type of khilaf that cannot be accepted are those that do not go through procedures agreed upon by the majority of the scholars.
Obviously, dismissing the need for and legitamacy of the four madhabs is dangerous, if unjustified.
2. However, the shafee’s and the hanafee’s and the malikis and the hanbali’s, this split only divides us further, and then the so called ‘obligation’ to follow a madhab only divides us further.
The sad reality is that students from these different madhabs do take swipes at one another. However, this does not entail doing away with the traditional schools of thought. Instead, Muslims should adopt the proper etiquette of disagreement and understand that:
a. The practice of following the opinion of a particular madhab/imam is acceptable for the general public and should not be condemned indiscriminately.
b. On the other hand, ijtihad (the effort a jurist makes in order to deduce the law, which is not self-evident, from its sources) cannot be made obligatory for everyone.
c. Khilaf issues should not be a source of controvosy, polemic or conflicts in society. Objective and academic discourse should be encouraged at a suitable time and place.
d. The practice of character-bashing and labelling others as kafir, fasiq and committing bida or other malicious names with regards to khilaf (differences in opinion) or because of it, is not acceptable.
e. Being polite and constructive in voicing disagreements, as opposed to your penchant for the word kufr, are part of the good manners in Islam and a manifestation of prophetic moderation.
3. Why cant we just keep it simple, and follow the madhab of the salaf, our piou predecessers, islaam our deen and Muhammad (sallallhu’alayhi’wa’salaam) our imaam.
This is disingenious. The so-called madhab of the salaf, like the madhab of ahlus-sunnah-wal-jemaah, is not a monolithic block. There are self-proclaimed salafists like bin Baaz, Qaradawai and Usama, and yet, they hate each others’ guts and constantly denounce the other as kufr.
As it is with other schools of thought, there is diversity within the so-called madhab of the salaf, ranging from moderate to extreme.
My point is not to disparage the so-called madhab of the salaf, but to highlight that differences in opinion is entirely normal in humankind, and should not be summarily condemned within the umma.
Supressing differences in opinion is destructive, unrealistic and counter-productive. Like interpreting the primary texts of hadith and Koran, reconciliation between disparate views is a science, a discipline not to be taken lightly. Mechanisms must be put in place and respected. Arbitary dismissal, like labeling such and such an idea as kufr (apostate), or imitation of kufr, has NO place in Islam’s body politic. It is this activity, more than anything else, that has led to the shattered state of the umma.
Human diversity is a manifestation of Allah’s boundless mercy toward us. Diversity exists quite comfortably with unity in nature. The blueprint for life, for example, is a simple four-letter nucleotide alphabet. It speaks of a single creative imagination. However, take away individual gene variations (or differences, if you will), and life ceases to exist. It goes the way of the dodo.
I would say that the disunity of the umma is not so much due to the existence of the shafi’i, maliki, hanafi and hanbali madhabs (they’ve been around for nearly a thousand years, midwifing the umma through its golden age), but the attitudes of Muslims toward differences in opinions. There’s been a hardened shift toward taking the extreme position these days, that ONLY my understanding is correct, and will save me from hellfire.
This comes as no surprise since this was the “moral” weapon both the British colonialists and Arab nationalists employed to destroy the “apostate” Ottoman empire during the eighteenth century.
Recent Comments